Anyone yearn for the good old days when ULTRAsomething was a photography site? I know some of you do, because up in the menu bar is a link to this site’s Contact Form, which several folks have wielded precisely to express such sentiment. Most recently, a friend and longtime reader sent an email in which he mentioned “those dim and distant days when you threw your photography crowd a bone or two.”

It got me thinking: Isn’t every article a bone? Isn’t every topic a festering feast of carrion, from which each and every photographer can pluck his or her own bone of choice and suckle at the marrow? Anyone who’s read ULTRAsomething for long enough to feel nostalgic for its past knows I don’t believe photography is about cameras, lenses or the mechanics of taking pictures. Photography is about life. It’s about how we experience our surroundings and how we filter them though our own unique cognitive maze. For me, photography is existentialism; not f-stops and DxO sensor ratings. To write about existentialism is to write about life, love, music, sociology, art, science, politics, religion, and even photography. All a reader needs to do is connect the dots.

If I connect a few dots of my own, I’m lead to believe it’s not so much a bone the photography crowd seeks as it is a chocolate covered tiramisu with a crème brûlée filling, soaked in cognac and garnished with a generous scoop of designer ice cream. I get it. You all want another gear review.

The problem with writing gear reviews is they require I actually possess something new. I don’t. And there are two reasons for this: One is that I can’t really afford to buy any new camera gear; and two is that I’m quite happy with the gear I have.

Technically, there are a couple work-arounds to the affordability problem. The first is to buy really cheap stuff, which is exactly what I did for my last gear article — a review of the Lomography Fisheye One toy camera. That little box of Tupperware set me back a whopping $20. Canadian. Which makes it the least expensive product ever reviewed on ULTRAsomething. Of the 70 articles dedicated to discussing photography gear on this site, it ranks 69th in popularity. Its follow-up article, Folding Time, is but a few spots shy of claiming the dubious distinction of being the least read article in this site’s 10-year history. For comparison, the most expensive product I’ve ever reviewed is the Leica Monochrom (Type 246) — which also happens to be the most read article in this site’s history. So “cheap gear” is obviously not quite the decadent dessert bar at which my readers hope to engorge.

Which brings me to the second possible workaround to the affordability problem: equipment loans. Most photography writers have only to ask manufacturers for review samples, and as fast as the UPS guy can pull up his brown shorts, there’s some fresh new loaner gear in the house. The problem with this solution is I seem to have written myself onto several company blacklists. Apparently, you must heap boundless praise upon a camera and use the phrase “game changer” a minimum of three times in the opening paragraph, or it’s no more cameras for you. The one exception has always been Leica — who are perfectly comfortable letting me write balanced and thoughtful reviews. Unfortunately, they seem to have a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” policy where I’m concerned. And since they haven’t called in awhile, that’s not really an option either.

My second impediment to new gear ownership — satisfaction with my current gear — is actually a very good problem to have. Being happy with my current gear means I can spend more time constructively blaming myself for lousy photos, and less time blaming the cameras and lenses. That’s not to say I don’t find myself yearning for a Voigtlander 10mm f/5.6 M-mount lens or, most inexplicably, an Olympus M.Zuiko ED 300mm f/4. But neither of these are really anything more than daydreams…

So if I’m going to daydream, why not dream big? Why not dream up a product that doesn’t exist? Why not dream of a product that, if it did exist, would inspire me to go earn some easy cash at that dicey medical research center on the outskirts of town?

Dreaming up such a camera requires no creative enhancement of any kind; no Psyilocybin mushrooms; no need to brew a cup of DMT or drop the needle on some Jefferson Airplane. Nope. My fantasy camera is based on a camera that once existed in the film era — the Ricoh GR21.

In 1996, Ricoh created the 28mm GR1 compact film camera. It was soon followed by the 28mm GR1s in 1997 and, five years later, the 28mm GR1v and 21mm GR21. In 2013, Ricoh introduced the first digital version of the old 28mm Ricoh GR1 film camera worthy of being called its ‘successor.’ I bought that camera the instant it hit the stores, and it’s been my constant companion ever since. It may not be my “best” camera, but it’s the camera I carry when I’m not on any particular photo mission — which is most of the time.

We are now five years on from the release of the Ricoh GR, which (like the film series before it) has had but one minor refresh in the form of the GRII. If history tells us anything, it tells us that we’re due for a major update to the GR line. When I purchased the Ricoh GR, 28mm was my ‘standard’ focal length, as it had been for several years. In the decade prior to that I’d been a 35mm shooter, and in the decade before that, 50mm was my “thing.” Anyone quasi-adept at trend-line analysis could have predicted what happened next: I’ve gradually become a 21mm shooter.

So naturally, the camera of my dreams is a Ricoh GR21D — a digital (and hopefully more reliable) version of the old GR21 film camera.

Based on my status as the world’s most peculiar photography blogger, I fully expect Ricoh to green light this camera immediately. But before they do, I have a few more requests:

1) Cameras need viewfinders. If I wanted to hold a camera at arm’s length and squint at an LCD, I’d use my iPhone. So please replace the series’ useless built-in flash with a pop-up optical viewfinder.

2) We all know this is going to be a fairly expensive camera due to its relatively limited audience (me?). So go ahead and give that audience what it wants: a full-frame sensor with modern low light capabilities. If you do this, I won’t spend the next year grumbling about how good the camera could have been.

3) Repeat after me: “monochrome.” This might be controversial, but since you’re making this camera for me, consider increasing the fidelity by leaving out the Bayer filter and those silly software demosaicing algorithms. Feel free to add a color version to the lineup if you think it’ll increase sales — I’ll be buying the monochrome.

It’s not that far-fetched of a dream. There is historical precedent, and there’s nothing technology-wise that hasn’t already been done. The market for compacts has definitely taken a smart phone beating, but smart phones still don’t offer full frame sensors, optical viewfinders, impeccable wide angle optics, good ergonomics, or the fast handling speeds needed by certain types of photographers.

This is a camera I want so badly that I’m now carting around a Frankenstein approximation of it — a Ricoh GR with a clunky, bulbous monstrosity of a 21mm adapter snapped to its front, and a wart of a 21mm viewfinder slotted into its top. Pocketable, it is not. Front heavy, it is. Plus it disconcertingly rattles when I carry it. And even with these bolt-on carbuncles, it’s still not a full-frame, low-light sensor. It’s also still burdened with color, which I automatically strip out when I import the raw files into Lightroom. But even though I never actually see the color images, I do still see the image degradation caused by using a camera with a Bayer filter.

So how about it Ricoh? Isn’t it about time for a digital version of the GR21? You make it; I’ll find a way to buy it. Heck, I might even review it! But just to be clear, I still won’t use the “game changer” phrase.

And this, my bone-loving friends, is how you write an article about photography gear without having to actually acquire any photography gear. One doesn’t blog for 10 years without learning a trick or two…

What we have here is the result of the whole ‘carrying around a camera when I’m not expecting to take any photos’ situation. These are all simply photo “notes” that I take to remind myself of this thing or that thing. Maybe something amused me. Maybe I just like the geometry; or the light; or… whatever. In this case, the photos document two different non-photo-oriented strolls through the Vancouver Art Gallery, along with a stop in a downtown store whose domed glass roof looked more (to me) like art hanging in a gallery than the art hanging in the gallery. The first trip yielded “Gallery: Bones” and “Gallery: Not Gallery,” which were taken with the faux GR21 monstrosity. The second trip yielded “Gallery: Porn,”“Gallery: Bombhead” and “Gallery: Antigravity Exhibit.” These were shot, instead, with the Leica Monochrom (Type 246) and a 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/3.4 lens — a combination I had just realized wasn’t any larger (just heavier) than the Frankenstein GR… which coincides with the precise point I started to dream of a pocketable digital GR21.

REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.

Comments

I personally hope there will never be a new Ricoh GR camera. After trying out pretty much every mirrorless camera that’s out there, and not really being that happy with any of them (the Leica X2 comes closest to being fun to use, believe it or not), I’ve sold them all. Except for the X2.
I’ve made peace with the fact that I just enjoy shooting old film cameras so much more. I currently am using a Leica iiic from 1950 (pocketable!) and a Mamiya-Six folder from 1955. Both make great images when I let them.

A new Ricoh GR 21 would mean I would have to buy one. I don’t want to do that. My wife, especially, doesn’t want me to do that. So please, no. The temptation would be too great. And I’d just end up selling it after six months…

Hi Hank: My aversion to social media keeps my “influencer” ratings rather suppressed, so this article is unlikely to trigger any sort of tweetstorm demanding Ricoh produce a digital GR21. That said, you did just say “A new Ricoh GR 21 would mean I would have to buy one.” So if anyone from Ricoh is reading this, you may have just inadvertently helped enable that which you wish not to happen…

You are one of the most perceptive street photographers currently practicing. I think I would be quite happy if you simply posted a selection of your photographs each month and talked a little bit about each one.

Hi Dave: Long time no hear from! Thanks for a comment so kind that I now feel obliged to remind you there are no prizes for flattery. Which is too bad, because you might have been in contention if there were.

I’ve been thinking long (10 years running) and hard (not really) about restructuring ULTRAsomething. One of the directions I keep considering is exactly what you suggest. But each time I go down that thought path, I reach the same conclusion: that talking about a photo is sort of like explaining a joke. Or a poem. I see photos as an alternate form of language, so I should probably allow them live or die of their own accord. Plus, it’s highly probable the viewer sees something I never intended, so why reveal myself to be any less perceptive than I sometimes seem?

I have a suggestion you have no doubt tried personally (considering your previous Leica Monochrom reviews). I shoot a Voigtlander 21mm f/1.8 on a M9 Monochrom. It isn’t “pocketable” but its well balanced, no gross Bayer filter, and it takes beautiful images. I know, I know, it would cost you roughly $4k to get (back?) in to that system, but hear me out. For Ricoh to R&D, manufacture, ship and retail your dream camera and sell it only to you, you would have to pay for all of that and the employees involved. We are talking easily millions of dollars. So, in comparison the Leica is quite a bargain!

Your suggestion is so good, I actually travelled back in time and took you up on it.

Three of the shots in this article were indeed shot with the Monochrom (246) with the little Leica 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar. In fact this is my “go to” combination these days… But pocket-ability is the key to this particular dream. I sometimes like to walk around hands-free and without a camera hanging off my shoulder — thus pretending to be a “normal” person on occasion.

Alas, you and I both know that Ricoh (in spite of their history) is unlikely to ever make this camera. Hence the “daydream” analogy. So, bottom line, if I want “fidelity,” I’m going to have to keep carting around the Monochrom. And if I want true pocket-ability, I’ll either have to make do with the 28mm “telephoto” on the Ricoh GR or bite-the-bullet and buy an old Ricoh GR21 film camera… which I would have done by now except they’re rare; expensive; and prone to (unfixable) failure.

Kudos, by the way, for skillfully positioning Leica gear so that it seems like a ‘bargain.’ I’m guessing you’ve had practice? 😉

Have you considered the Sony RX100? I know, not dedicated B&W, 24mm not 21mm, zoom lens, Sony. It’s a form factor I’ve avoided since the original release some 6 years ago. But I picked up a used III recently for cheap and am surprised at the image quality of the 1″ sensor, the quality of the f/1.8 lens, the usability of the popup finder, and the solid build quality. In some ways it reminds me of my old Rollei 35 SE brick I bought in the 80’s. It’s a potent camera in a very small package. And it fits in a pocket.

I had sort of a hate/hate relationship with zoom-able compacts back in the day. Not that I have anything against zooms — I just don’t have the self discipline not to use it when it’s available! So every time I want to take a shot, I feel compelled to fiddle with the zoom, and end up missing it altogether… Plus, just knowing I have the option messes up my ability to see. When I go out with a single focal length, I know exactly where to train my eye. When I go out with a zoom, I tend not to see anything ‘cause I have so many options. :-p

This woefully obvious character flaw of mine also explains why I have about 50 lenses (either built-in or part of a system), and none of them are zooms.

I have no real qualms about the camera’s 1” sensor however — increased Depth of Field is actually a desirable attribute for me (and is part of the reason I sometimes use micro four-thirds). I’m obviously not concerned with fidelity (as anyone reading this site can plainly see), and I’m brand-agnostic — a good camera is a good camera.

The RX100 series intrigues me enough (particularly the pop-up viewfinder) that I keep checking every year to see if they’ve added a “fixed focal length” version to the lineup. If they did this, I might take the plunge. Yeah, there’s the RX1, but the lens bump prevents pocketing).

Thanks for the suggestion. I might just have to go take another look at the RX100. And even though I’ll probably decide against it, your comment did have one very positive effect: It reminded me that it’s once again time to spool some Tri-X through my old Rollei 35!

Please continue to keep this site alive Egor!. I care very little about your crazy music musings but they are in character. I love the association you make between text and the photos, they are very often engaging and a nice puzzle to solve.

Having said that, I do love gear talk when it’s well made and passionate, and not to sell one or two ads. So I remember fondly your Leica Monochrom review (you actually made me really consider buying one, luckily I ended up getting a used Fuji X-Pro 1 last year and I had great fun with it).

Anyway, nice idea the review of non-existent cameras. But that suggestion of one of your other readers, i.e. to post routinely some of your photos with the story behind, even if it’s not a literal description, I’d enjoy that.

Also, I know that it may be a struggle to keep the routine, so just be assured that if you’d ever consider asking your readership to support you financially (e.g. through Patreon) I’d have no problem in doing so.

Hello Alessandro. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your encouragement to sign up with Patreon. I’ve considered doing this on several occasions, but the only thing keeping this site alive is the knowledge that I’m free to shut it down any time. That said, I haven’t shut it down in ten years, so site-implosion might be just a fantasy — but it’s a nice fantasy to have.

Besides, once I have “customers,” my content becomes less about what I want to write and more about what patrons want to read. This is at odds with my new ‘mission statement’, which is to “Write what I want when I want if I want.” There’s a great line from the 1947 film, Out of the Past, where Robert Mitchum tells Jane Greer, “You’re like a leaf that the wind blows from one gutter to another.” I want ULTRAsomething to be that leaf. But would patrons want that? From what I’ve seen, the more niche a site, the more patrons it attracts. I want to avoid niches — unless my “niche” is to be niche-less.

I guess it wouldn’t hurt to set up a Patreon page, tell people that the purpose of the site is to “Write what I want when I want if I want” and see what happens. I think my psyche is strong enough to survive having a Patreon account with zero patrons. Heck, I’d likely even be proud of that fact! Hmmm, when I look at it like this, signing up for Patreon sounds almost “fun.” So it appears your comment may have moved me from the “no” peg to the “maybe” peg… 😉